United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc.
- Victor Marrero
- 1:19-cv-04355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In SEC v. Collector’s Coffee, Judge Schofield adopted a recommendation substituting the Jackie Robinson Foundation for the Dodgers as intervenor-defendant.
The Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC and the Jackie Robinson Foundation, Inc., concerning which entity would serve as the intervenor-defendant.
What happened
United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector’s Coffee Inc. involved a request by the Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC to substitute the Jackie Robinson Foundation, Inc. as the intervenor-defendant.
A magistrate judge recommended granting the substitution motion. No timely objections were filed by the March 13, 2020 deadline, so the district court reviewed the recommendation only for clear error on the record.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court therefore ordered the substitution and asked the Clerk of Court to close the motion.
The detailed version
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-04355
- Victor Marrero
- Apr. 1, 2020
Background
The Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, an intervenor-defendant, moved to be replaced by the Jackie Robinson Foundation, Inc. A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion be granted.
Review of the Recommendation
The deadline for objections was March 13, 2020, and no timely objections were filed. Under the governing procedure, when no timely objection is made, the district judge reviews the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. The court found no such error.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the court’s opinion. The order substituted the Jackie Robinson Foundation, Inc. for the Dodgers as the intervenor-defendant and requested that the Clerk of Court close the motion at Dkt. No. 178. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.